uraniumUmbra @bigbadelite
Most are running from ISIS. And until Vox here proves me wrong I stand by my claim.

Space Bunnyopoulos @Spacebunnyday
Standing by your baseless and demonstrably wrong claim just makes you an idiot.

What I find fascinating about this exchange is the way in which UrineShadow or whatever his name is observably does not understand the concept of objective reality. And basic logic, specifically, the law of non-contradiction, is also beyond him.

He doesn't understand that due to the principium tertii exclusi, one of us has to be correct. Either most of the migrants are refugees or most of them are not refugees. The ability or inability of either of us to prove the case is totally irrelevant with regards to who is correct; the facts are what they are because the nature of the refugees is not dictated by our perception, definition, or knowledge of them.
But thatis not the only problem. Note his accusation of hypocrisy, when in fact he is the only hypocrite here, demanding proof despite providing none in his original assertion. This is further proof of the Third Law of SJW: SJWs always project.

Contra the dictum of Saint Hitch, who was a witty man, but no logician, that which is asserted without proof cannot reasonably be dismissed without proof. For it is not proof, or evidence, or sources that matter, but truth, which is to say, a subjective opinion that is in line with observable objective reality.

The ability, or the willingness, to demonstrate this harmony is irrelevant with regards to the simple fact of its existence.

138 Comments:

If they're mostly refugees where are their families? From the pics I've seen they're mostly single young men, which looks more like an army than refugees. But hey, they never let facts get in the way of the narrative.

1. Assertion of fact by her that is a lie.2. Correction3. WHO THE HELL CARES ANYWAY??

I saw this over on the Saaed articles that Dalrock posted. It was hilarious:

a. Woman/mangina who claimed to have "all the facts" said we were either illiterate or evil in claiming that Saaed's wife had asserted physical abuse and pornography use in the Iranian prisons. Said we were horrible unchristian people who didn't read her stuff.b. Some brilliant fighter of the good fight tracked down her statement wherein she said exactly that the physical abuse had increased since he went to jail, and that he was using pornography in the Iranian prison, therefore, she was right to divorce him.c. Mangina/woman says that it's now he-said/she-said because we were choosing to believe Saaed when, since we weren't there, we didn't know what went on in the prison, anyway. (Just like this retard's "we're both wrong" statement.)d. Somebody else pointed out that Amir Hekmati shared a cell with him and that his parents had visited and that there were others who could attest to the pornography used as a tool of subversion in the Iranian prison.e. Original woman/mangina says we're hung up on the pornography use in the prisons, of course it is no surprise to any thinking person that he was using pronography in there as Iranian prisons are awash in it, and who ever said that this wasn't why she wanted to divorce him?f. Of course, the written record showed it was her/it/xer two hours earlier, but, WHO THE HELL CARES?

Fred Reed is always vindicated - these people are incapable of nothing more than crude farm or factory work, because they can't even remember what they themselves said when there's a written record of it earlier in the day.

Either most of the migrants are refugees or most of them are not refugees.

Ah but no but - there is also a one in several billion chance that there are exactly the same number of rapefugees and refugees. Those are the kind of statistical anomalies the define SJW logic.

The fact that there are a few live births per million that survive with sex chromosome abnormalities prooves that there are 47 different genders and that sex is just a social construct.

This inability to look at reality objectively is a combination of their narcissism (everything has to be about me, me , me. I am the norm and everyone else who disagrees is wrong!") and their stupidity due to the dumbing down they receive in state schools which prevents them understanding basic mathematical concepts like probability.

And of course, if you provided proof, he'd start attacking the credibility of it, or switch to screaming "racist!" at you, and what the hell is the point of providing proof to people who don't believe in truth anyway?

I dealt with one of these a week or so ago. I observed them demand truth and someone else took the dialectic bait and provided proof. He then dismissed is out of hand with, "I don't believe that". When I engaged him, he tried the same schtick then feigned being incredulous that instead of providing him proof (to ignore) I simply spammed him with dank Nazi memes.

For it is not proof, or evidence, or sources that matter, but truth, which is to say, a subjective opinion that is in line with observable objective reality.

First of all, 'urine shadow' . . . my G-d that was funny.

Second, truth is precisely what these morons cannot abide nor do they have even the slightest interest in the truth. It is no small thing that the Messiah identified Himself as the embodiment of truth (cf. John 14).

They love evil rather than good, they love falsehood rather than speaking the truth. They are self-seeking, they have taught their tongues to lie, and they detest anyone who tells the truth.

We, on the other hand, cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. It is astounding how we become their enemies by telling them the truth and, sadly, they will perish for their refusal to hold fast to that which makes them free.

What is G-d's greatest joy?

I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth. (cf. III John 1).

This is no time for shrinking back. Be strong, be strong, let us be strenghtened!

Pretty simple. I think something like 20% of registered asylum seekers are from Syria (very few from Iraq). Most of these people are from North Africa, and even countries as far flung as Malawi. Ask him what civil war is being wreaked in Malawi.

As others have stated. This is ever the case with Leftists. They do not believe in objective truths.

It's the same as the constitutional vs unconstitutional with them. In their world something is constitutional because the SCOTUS said so. It doesn't matter if there isn't a single word in the constitution that supports the decision.

They require some authority (always a person or body of persons) to say something is the truth. The only caveat is it has to be an authority on their team.

@Mark CitadelThere's a lot of controversy about those figures, but it doesn't really matter.

Refugees from Syria didn't get into boats and sail to Europe. They crossed the land border into Turkey, Jordan, or Lebanon. It was only when they didn't like the economic opportunities in Turkey that they left their families behind and sailed to Europe.

There's a term for people who go to another country seeking better economic opportunities, and it's not "refugees".

There's a term for people who go to another country seeking better economic opportunities, and it's not "refugees".

Looters both Elite and 3rd world.

OT: Most of us already knew this but it was nice for a journalist to say it on live TVhttp://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/02/top-german-journalist-admits-live-on-air-national-news-agenda-set-by-government/

"“Today, one is not allowed to say anything negative about the refugees” said Dr. Herles,"

@15 PA I have read, and I'm sure you know too, that the state department purposely redefined what a refugee is in order to exclude Christians. A refugee is now someone who is persecuted by their own government. Assad is protecting Christians and other minorities therefore the state department will not accept Christians. This makes one wonder, if these muslims are being persecuted by the secular Assad then what are the chances they belong to extremist groups....hmmmm

Err, a simple link would've sufficed to demonstrate the if the interlocutor was open to being falsified. A duking out of opposing assertions is not exactly a convincing demonstration of your rhetorical or dialectical power here Vox.

@35 it's clear that you are either a troll or you have never engaged with a SJW. A pile of evidence is never enough for them. Supply them with citations and they will disqualify them all for trivial reasons.

As for people on the ground in the affected area, the Economist provides the following quotes: "VIKTOR ORBÁN, Hungary’s prime minister, says the “overwhelming majority” of migrants in Europe are not refugees but are merely seeking a better life. Robert Fico, his Slovak counterpart, says up to 95% are economic migrants."

Err, a simple link would've sufficed to demonstrate the if the interlocutor was open to being falsified. A duking out of opposing assertions is not exactly a convincing demonstration of your rhetorical or dialectical power here Vox.

Why do you think demonstrating my rhetorical or dialectical power was the point? Do you really think I have any need to do so every time I deal with some cretin on Twitter?

IIRC, Syrian Christians get protection under Assad's government, and Iraqi Christians in Kurdistan.

This Muslim male hijra is completely predictable, given how Islam is structured to be a gaping woman sink, both by polygamy as well as the restrictions placed on single Muslim women socializing (i.e. harassment by Muslim men and family pressure).

Because of this possessiveness, which strikes me as extremely Gamma, I don't know of any culture that is so despised by outsiders as Islam. (Christianity is the most hated, but not the most despised.)

Err, a simple link would've sufficed to demonstrate the if the interlocutor was open to being falsified. A duking out of opposing assertions is not exactly a convincing demonstration of your rhetorical or dialectical power here Vox.

@15 PA I have read, and I'm sure you know too, that the state department purposely redefined what a refugee is in order to exclude Christians. A refugee is now someone who is persecuted by their own government. Assad is protecting Christians and other minorities therefore the state department will not accept Christians. This makes one wonder, if these muslims are being persecuted by the secular Assad then what are the chances they belong to extremist groups....hmmmm

Here's all the fact you need. On cuckchan's /v/, some 5 years back, "prove me wrong" was made into an auto-ban phrase. Mods did this to combat a scourge of incredibly effective trolls all running the exact same style: "[outrageous video game related assertion]. Prove me wrong." Instant recipe for a massive angry trollfest shit thread. Worked every time.

So if your style of argumentation is "assertion. Prove me wrong." You are at best using ancient 4chan troll techniques. If you think anyone who says such things is a serious thinker, you are getting taken by such techniques. Get it together.

Err, a simple link would've sufficed to demonstrate the if the interlocutor was open to being falsified...

Err, the Leftard could easily have found that link himself, if he was actually wanted to know the truth. But he does not need to do any work, or thinking, or evaluation in order to regurgitate pre-existing dogma.

First of all, 'urine shadow' . . . my G-d that was funny.Same here. This critter reminds me of a regular troll over at Chateau Hartiste know as 'The Spirit Within'. Throws out SJW nonsense, no one even bothers to refute it - just mocking, usually with 'pegging' references such as 'the strapon within'.There are plenty of examples such as YouTube videos where it can be easily seen there are very few women, children or obvious older people.

Yes, yes we do. My direct experience with SJW types leads me to believe they were treated as special little snowflakes their entire lives and had no consequences for their actions. The parallels in behaviour between my 4 year old daughter and the average online SJW is terrifying.

If something 'important' doesn't go her way she screams "You hurt my feelings". I expect she learnt that shit at daycare but it doesn't fly with me or the wife. My first response is usually "that's nice". I follow the school of thought that parents are essentially wild animal trainers. You reward good behaviour and you punish bad behaviour. Once you've sufficiently civilized them they earn privileges. Like say, when you are house breaking a puppy. They don't know any better and will try to get away with whatever they can. Same for small children. Same for SJWs? I believe so.

I think I won't make anyone happy if I point out that there is a very unlikely third possibility that the number of refugees is exactly the same as the number of non-refugees. But I will be shutting up about this.

IIRC, Syrian Christians get protection under Assad's government, and Iraqi Christians in Kurdistan.

Christian refugees get snatched from the camps and disappeared. It's why here in Canada we are busy rescuing people who are in relatively safe conditions and are almost exclusively Muslim. Even Muclair (our lefty-left federal leader) made a point of that fact. Violation of the narrative or what?

There is a silver lining - some of the refugees are so put out by waiting in a Toronto hotel for 7-11 days with no violence and 3 square meals a day that they want to go back to the camps. I hope the government takes them at face value and ships them back... but I'm not holding my breath. Needless to say that sort of entitled whining doesn't win them any sympathy with more moderate citizens who are usually just asleep at the wheel.

Providing proof or a link to an SJW is like yelling at a barking dog on a chain.

Once again...

a) 9 blows to the headb) take a quick breathc) 4 more blows to the headd) knock em down and tell em to f... off.

Okay maybe I watched that video too many times. It was almost as good as the girl who challenged the guy in the boxing match and then spent the next several minutes tying to get off the floor and turn her headgear around so she could see.

The initial statement is typical leftist weasel-word cover. It can only be false if you could prove that every single migrant were a refugee, so it is being used to both justify and distract criticism from the narrative.

In this case it appears to have succeeded spectacularly - No one is contesting the narrative. Instead everyone has been sucked into arguing about the qualifier.

Instead of disputing the (pseudo-dialectic?) qualifying statement, wouldn't it be more effective to attack the narrative directly?

For example, reword the narrative claim in brutal truth and throw it back in their faces - "It's ok to import any number of rapists/thieves/murderers in the name of pretending to rescue oppressed refugees."

Vox, would this qualify as an example of how leftists/SJW's pull their opponents off the real target, their narrative pushes?

@67 It is now considered harassment to suggest someone that they should read. Or something. Be careful.

@68 I think it is safe to say that it is now considered racism to assume that someone can read. Or something. Or maybe it is ableism. Or transphobic. It is something, I am sure. The SJWs will have a name for it soon enough. Racism will do for now.

To be fair, both of them have the burden of proof. The point is not exactly this, but that the SJW will gladly demand proof for opposing assertions while not only straight up refusing to provide proof for his own assertions but also demanding that his assertions are accepted as fact unless proven otherwise.

What I stand in awe of is my own awe of the convolutions of argument logic [logic in general, or, to be more qualified that of my own personal sense of logic whatever the heck that means]and great realm of the use of human logic. End of the day, with the headaches sometimes generated by logical arguments, it just easier to pull a pistol and shoot someone and go have a beer.

Amazing. Eight exchanges without a single attempt to provide any references. I could cite several [admittedly questionable, but still extant] references to support his flimsy assertions, but he can't - or won't.

What we see here is the pathological egotism of the SJW that demands that all must treat his assertions as truth - no proof required. He actually cannot understand why we do not believe him - in fact, he is offended that we even dare ask for references to support such 'self-evident truths.'

Reason is not effective against SJWs, becasue they have expunged it from their minds. Since civil, rational discourse has been ruled out, what are we left with in our dealings with them?

The obvious, but unpleasant, answer may well be required before this conflict ends.

The liberal has a serious problem when debating others. Liberals do not believe in truth. They are consummate relativists who insist on the subjectivity of everything.

Yet, they are stuck with the need to convince people of their positions, until they have sufficient power to do away with that convincing.

The liberal believes that the only way to convince others when truth does not exist is to create arguments that appear to weigh against self-interest. This is the source of the anti-white positions that liberal's espouse. A white liberal complaining about white privilege, defending Syrian "refugees" and railing against Christianity believes he is inoculating himself against the charge of self-interested hypocrisy. This is supposed to elevate his arguments above that of others who are merely arguing for their benefit.

@79 What we see here is the pathological egotism of the SJW that demands that all must treat his assertions as truth - no proof required. He actually cannot understand why we do not believe him - in fact, he is offended that we even dare ask for references to support such 'self-evident truths.'

Reason is not effective against SJWs, becasue they have expunged it from their minds. Since civil, rational discourse has been ruled out, what are we left with in our dealings with them?

r/K-selection theory has an explanation for that...

I actually think that the greater rhetorical answer, because the exchange above requires at least sufficient awareness to follow that Vox is putting him in a hypocritical corner, is to say exactly that: addressed towards him but not at him. "And so we see the pathological egotism of the SJW who demands that all his ridiculous assertions be accepted as truth just because he said it," would have cut to the chase a lot faster.

It has been noticed that the "refugees" are overwhelmingly ( is 75% enough to use that term?) young, able bodied men. That is not what would be expected with refugees. I'd expect better than half being old people and kids. His assertion that they are refugees, is utterly ignorant.

I had open borders libertarians tell me how great how all this mass immigration is for everyone. Supposedly, the economy is so great that we need more of them even educated ones. I explained to them how I'm sure the Disney workers who lost to H-1B replacements and the 100,000 plus oil workers who lost their jobs would probably agree with them.

@80You're completely wrong because you ignored the second sentence. "Not all are refugees. But the amount that are far outweigh those that aren't."

In case you can't parse that second sentence, it is the equivalent of saying that most migrants are refugees.

No, I didn't ignore the second sentence - I just don't agree that "outweigh" is equivalent to "outnumber."

Everything (or nearly so) that a leftist says or does is pushing a narrative. In this case, this narrative:

@87"We must help Muslim refugees" is a totem, it's a metaphor that Social Justice Warriors *need*, it makes them feel good ... .

IMO, that's what the entire statement is trying to push. Not that "most migrants are really refugees", but that "it doesn't matter how many there are; the refugees are so important we should accept them all" - because feelz.

No, I didn't ignore the second sentence - I just don't agree that "outweigh" is equivalent to "outnumber."

That's not a credible perspective considering that the statement was made to contradict this one: "You can call them whatever you want, but you are an idiot if you truly believe they are all "refugees".

Considering that "outweigh" refers to "amount", how can you possibly suggest that it is not used in a manner equivalent to "outnumber"?

I would almost argue that outweigh doesn't mean outnumber in this context. But for a slightly different reason, if he meant outnumber, he'd say outnumber. But he's a retarded SJW and they don't do quantities. I would argue that in this sentence it is a meaningless verbaliziation of feelz and virtue signaling. Wave away that fog and there is actually nothing there. No real thought went into it. Just feelz.

Of course that knowledge wouldn't change anything. I think VD's response was appropriate. The peeman is a moron.

All you needed to do here was google for the proof and it would have been the same amount of tapping on the they keyboard.

You have your audience right there, ready and willing to listen (within certain limits, but, sell sell sell) Sow doubts and questions into their minds, and maybe you'll inspire them to think critically -- as always, Socrates' method is the best here. Use it for fun and profit!

Good grief. This isn't even a little bit confusing. It was unequivocally clear from the outset that "outweigh" referred to a heavier percentage of migrants being refugees.

dumbass wrote: Not all are refugees. But the amount that are far outweigh those that aren't.

Translation: Not all migrants are refugees, but the percentage of migrants that are refugees far outweighs the percentage of migrants that aren't refugees.

Yes yes, in translation, sort of. But it is still an odd word to use, one of those squishy, get-it-off-of-me SJW words. It's a creep tell. S/h/it should have just said "outnumber" if s/h/it* meant "outnumber". How much does a percentage weigh?

"Outweigh" has nasty NLP connotations, as in 'most rapists & SJWs outweigh their victims'**, or a Marxian/utilitarian 'the needs of the 'refugees' outweigh the needs of the natives'. That might be what s/h/it was thinking, then walked it over to numbers. Does anybody even use this word IRL? Martial arts maybe? I don't think I've ever even typed it in before now. This apple is heavier than that one, not this apple outweighs that one.

*My go-to gender-neutral term- easier to keep track of than all those xyrs or whatever.**Hmmm. Has anybody done a formal study of the average mass ratio of SJW/victim? I'll guess the average to be over 1.5. Maybe BMI would be better, to zero out height differences? Science!

>All you needed to do here was google for the proof and it would have been the same amount of tapping on the they keyboard.

OMG! Even in my freshman-level classes, if an assertion is made, I count off points and, don't swoon on me here, I don't feel obligated to make any other comment besides, "this is an assertion, not an argument." Is this really that hard?

"Err, a simple link would've sufficed to demonstrate the if the interlocutor was open to being falsified. A duking out of opposing assertions is not exactly a convincing demonstration of your rhetorical or dialectical power here Vox."

That's how a solipsist would look at it. But Vox isn't a solipsist, so in his world, everything isn't about Vox and his power. He's holding up a mirror to the SJW.

This is fascinating, and can certainly be used to advantage. In the short term, however, American readers need to register "D" as quickly as possible and participate in every primary that they have access to.

They also need to flood social media channels, set up posters, bumper stickers and even spray paint slogans on bus shelters in support of Bernie Sanders. The reason, of course, is to ensure the implosion of an even worse choice, Hillary Clinton and her band of thugs, grifters and anti-American thieves. Visibly crush Clinton in the primaries and even the rigged Democrat convention with its bought and paid for super delegates won't be able to hide the stench of Clinton, or the popular expression of disgust with her on the "D" side.

Afterwards, simply drop out of sight when the "D's" come looking for volunteers and money, or engage them in these sorts of intellectual contests (well, it is like shooting fish in a barrel, but never mind), to demoralize and confuse them.

What our dear American friends do in the voting booth on election night is entirely up to them, of course.

a - don't careb - still aren't going to sleep with youc - you're addressing the Evil Lord of Evil ensconced 'pon yonder skull throne. really? you take THIS for an effective critique?

99. Ahazuerus February 03, 2016 6:02 PMLikewise, and kafkaesque, any accusation by a leftist is proof of guilt.

that's Who / Whom outgrouping. guilt by association.

what i'm talking about is a direct Social Dominance play which happens all the time face-to-face and which is completely independent of political ideology.

Taylor, for instance, used to play this game all the time. in her instance, she was weaned on this as a Daddy's Little Princess. it was when she finally decided to shit on Vox that she got banned. but she'd been pulling this crap on pretty much all the men who commented here for a long, LONG time before it came to that.

"That might be what s/h/it was thinking, then walked it over to numbers. Does anybody even use this word IRL?"

I use priority weights when making big financial decisions... like buying a house or car. Single story outweighs the existence of a pool. Its not heavier or has more mass.

Precisely. It is not more numerous either. And your use of it is a realization of Subjective Value Theory. Someone suggesting to you that a pool should "far outweigh" a single story is either gaming you or simply expressing his own preference.

It is conceivable that exactly as many are refugees as are not refugees. However, this is exceedingly improbable. And all the evidence I've seen that cites numbers says that most of them are not refugees, by factors of several to one.

Taylor, for instance, used to play this game all the time. in her instance, she was weaned on this as a Daddy's Little Princess. it was when she finally decided to shit on Vox that she got banned. but she'd been pulling this crap on pretty much all the men who commented here for a long, LONG time before it came to that.

through at least three name changes.

You have to admit, it was fun to push Taylor's buttons. It took very little encouragement to get her whipped into a foul mouthed frenzy, but yeah, Vox didn't think it was a funny as I did.

I can't tell if you've been a very bad influence on me, or a very good one. All I know is, over the past few weeks, I've come to embrace the reality that most people never rise to dialectic.

I've been taunting opposition with comparisons to elementary school children, insinuation of their inferior intelligence or knowledge, and sliding insults at angles that are visible but difficult to directly attack.

...In retrospect, good influence. Thanks be to the Nameless Dark Lord!

@46 I wish they'd do it to "hey /pol/ redpill me on X" and that insane flat-earther Irishwoman. Of course "Assertion, prove me wrong" is Sarkpuppet's schtick, and the response is always proof=harassment. Can't win when you're playing against the hamster.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.